The Instigator
Qetzlcoatl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 11818
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Qetzlcoatl

Pro

I would like to point out that whoever challenges this should be informed to stay on the debated topic and not concentrate on grammar or lack of information. All the info one would need is the topic and their sources, be it self experience or an outside source. So let's have a sensibal and clean debate.

I believe that, from what I've seen, that people have decided to post topics that really does not pertain to anything relavant. And thus any topic that is nonsensical should be left alone. I can concur that some debates can be humorous and sometimes meant to entertain onlookers, but this place is riddled with them and I believe should lept to a minimum. And I will admit hands on, I enjoy some nonsensible debates, but not all.
Danielle

Con

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.

1. If one does not accept a debate in the challenge period, then it remains in the challenge period for all debaters to see when they check what debates are available. If a debater accepts the debate right away, it minimizes the chances of a larger audience seeing the debate thus limiting the attention that the instigator so desperately seeks. This makes their nonsense FAIL.

2. Recently I took a dumb debate and pledged to forfeit 1 round - reason being that debates that have 1 or more forfeited rounds do not appear on the front page for voters to see. This also ensures that less people will see the dumb debate, hence limiting the amount of attention the instigator receives and therefore the instigator fails.

3. Sometimes it is amusing/challenging to come up with a legitimate argument against a joke topics. Usually this evokes some sort of creativity, typically in the form of semantics arguments. For example, one of my favorite debates I've done had the resolution "It is immoral to molest handicapped orphans" or something. I wound up winning the debate based on my creative argument, giving both myself, my opponent and the audience some entertainment.

4. Accepting a silly debate does no real harm. At best, it gives the more serious debater an easy win. At worst, well... nothing. It doesn't have any real negative effect aside from making the instigator look bad.

In conclusion, I'll leave my arguments at that for now though of course reserve the right to introduce new arguments in R2. Remember that the burden is on Pro to prove that frivolous debates ought not be accepted. I must prove that it is not any better to leave frivolous debates in the challenge period then it is to accept and debate them. Good luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Qetzlcoatl

Pro

I see your point. But what I did proved my own point. (Which really doesn't make sense and thus kills my own debate) I will admit this is my first time trying out debates, for practice, and thus do not know how this truly works. So in turn I read many things and decided to take up an arguement, that had some logic, but I'm sure creators of this website had already figured out a way in removing/moving satirical debates.

However, I will continue my debate as to give myself a chance to get used to this websites order. My opponent says by accepting the debate it will minimize the attention it will get. I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone. People have enough sense to leave a mutated monster alone since they do not know how to kill it (Excuse the poor metaphor). If we do not give attention to dumb debates then they will eventually not come, or hopefully create a whole new forum as to post irrelavent debates. Thank you Con for taking this debate.
Danielle

Con

Pro writes, "My opponent says by accepting the debate it will minimize the attention it will get. I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone." This statement seems contradictory and/or non-sensical. My point was that it is better to accept the debate then leave it alone, because accepting it limits the amount of attention that it will receive thus making the instigator's ambition (attention seeking) fail. All Pro has done is agree that the instigator should receive minimal attention, which he does not argue is better achieved by leaving the debate alone. So, effectively all Pro has done is agree with me.

Next Pro writes, "People have enough sense to leave a mutated monster alone since they do not know how to kill it (Excuse the poor metaphor)." Pro acknowledges that this metaphor is poor, and thus this is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Finally Pro concludes with, "If we do not give attention to dumb debates then they will eventually not come..." which is an assertion without any proof. I have explained that accepting the "dumb debates" actually gets them LESS attention, and Pro has not proven that "leaving them alone" will get them less attention. Therefore if the goal is to bring them less attention, then my way is better then Pro's meaning you should vote Con.

Also, if Pro is new to debating here then I suggest responding to each and every argument your opponent makes. For the sake of clarity, I listed all of my arguments (1-4) in Round 1. Pro should respond to each argument specifically to ensure that he does not ignore all of my points. Thanks again and good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
Qetzlcoatl

Pro

I thank you Pro for giving me advice and plan to do my best to at least not epically fail this debate.

My opponent refers to the me stating, "My opponent says by accepting the debate it will minimize the attention it will get. I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone." I will admit to stating it, but due to lack of attention to what was being typed I forgot to add 'no't before accepting and after 'by'. My opponent also states that my metaphor that I have posted in the previous round is poor (because of me acknowledging it) thus making it irrelavant. I was simply stating that if one were to read the metaphor they may not understand. However, it makes perfect sense. People refers to debators and mutated monsters refer to the satirical debate. I failed to mention how not accepting the debates gives them less attenion. By less attention I have meant that one would see it but answering it would be wrong, in the case that one would be giving that person the attention they need. So by leaving the debate alone, not responding it, you are giving it less attention.
Danielle

Con

First, please extend the arguments I have made that Pro did not respond to (i.e. 3 and 4, specifically).

Second, Pro's metaphor is indeed irrelevant. He says that people wouldn't bother a mutated monster because they wouldn't know how to kill it. This has absolutely no relevance to debating. Even if you want to consider a frivolous debate as something foreign, scary or unusual (like a mutated monster), it makes sense to be afraid of the monster but makes no sense to be 'afraid' of debating. In fact, my third argument (Pro ignored it) explained how taking on the challenge of defeating the "monster" could even be interesting or fun.

Finally, Pro insists that leaving the debate alone gets it less attention. My 1 and 2 points explained how this is not true. Once again, a debate "left alone" remains in the challenge period for all to see. An accepted debate means fewer people will see it, because just the opponent will see it until the voting period. After that, it goes to the voting page. Debaters are more likely to check out the page in the Challenge Period than the Voting Period, hence less attention. Furthermore, I explained how if the contender forfeits 1 round of the debate, then the debate won't show up on the home page after its conclusion meaning even LESS people will see it. Pro has not refuted any of this.
Debate Round No. 3
Qetzlcoatl

Pro

Con stated that battling an mutated monster may be fun. But when have you seen a person, in movies, in example, go against a monster an instantly kill them? They died. Perfect example, the Saw movies. One had done a deed to end up in the game and is forced to give up important things, i.e. limbs, friends, lives, etc. By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic. And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguements needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgement. So in the end it is just a waste of space.

1) Con mentions that a person who accepts a debate will move it from the front of the page for all to see and thus taking away less attention. But why accept it? Why couldn't one accept a better challenge than talk about, "Eagles should wear shoes"? In this it is better to ignore a unnecessary debate and give attention to a more interesting one.

2) My opponent states that they took a debate and forfeited the first round. Now in my knowledge you just entered a race and not ran. So by forfeiting the first round one didn't really debate. So this statement does not hinder or help you case, nor does it help or hinder mine.

3) Has already been stated in first paragraph.

4) My opponent posted that taking a silly debate does no realy harm and thus gives a serious debator an easy win or nothing, while the person who posted the debate only looks bad. Why would one want an easy victory? Wouldn't one rather go against a heated topic and lose, gaining experience in the process, than rather waste time and resources to try to prove a useless point right/wrong and then end up getting nothing than getting a few laughs and giggles. Debating is to prove a point for something important, like prove a novel is Marxist than rather Socialist, instead of trying to prove that an old sandwich is useless.

In conclusion I have finally realize to go against my opponent's core reasoning and finally go against them. I thank Con for taking this debate and training me a little for future debates. I hope that I can debate against you more in the future and hopefully it would be something different than this one. I have proven my points. I'll await my opponents response.
Danielle

Con

Pro begins by stating that I have suggested battling a deformed monster would be fun. Nowhere in the debate that I ever say that, therefore Pro has straw manned my arguments. Instead, here's what I wrote in R1 that Pro never responded to:

"3. Sometimes it is amusing/challenging to come up with a legitimate argument against a joke topics. Usually this evokes some sort of creativity, typically in the form of semantics arguments. For example, one of my favorite debates I've done had the resolution "It is immoral to molest handicapped orphans" or something. I wound up winning the debate based on my creative argument, giving both myself, my opponent and the audience some entertainment."

Next Pro writes, "By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic." This does not answer my 3rd point (see above) and in fact that point negates this argument. What I said was that if one works to debate something, and they make a frivolous argument legit, then they are using their brain and working creatively thus not making the debate a total 'waste.'

Pro continues, "And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguments needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgment. So in the end it is just a waste of space." << -- Fixed typos <--- Anyway, this statement is completely non-sensical. Would people vote for it? We should assume so, because after all, a frivolous title will probably garner some attention. For instance, I recently accepted a debate titled "Eagles should be forced to wear shoes." I was intrigued by the ridiculous title, and I think other people would be intrigued by it too this assuming that yes people would actually click to vote on it. Also, debates are only in the voting period forever if they're structured that way (to be voted upon indefinitely). This could be said about a ton of debates. In short, Pro has not proven that these debates are a "waste of space."

So let's move on to my Pro's actual rebuttal. In response to point 1, Pro writes that one simply shouldn't accept a frivolous debate and instead give attention to a more interesting debate. This is no way, shape or form combats my argument about why and how accepting a debate actually garners it LESS attention. As a reminder, I will copy and paste what I wrote under point 1 so you can see how this argument trumps Pro's and how he did not negate it at all:

"By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic. And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguements needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgement. So in the end it is just a waste of space."

In response to point 2, Pro says, "My opponent states that they took a debate and forfeited the first round. Now in my knowledge you just entered a race and not ran. So by forfeiting the first round one didn't really debate. So this statement does not hinder or help you case, nor does it help or hinder mine." Again, this is entirely non-sensical and random. My second point was about how forfeiting a round simply makes it not show up on the home page during the voting period, meaning less people will see it, meaning again it takes away attention from the instigator. Pro did not combat this reality and instead straw manned another one of my arguments.

Third, Pro says he "responded in the first paragraph" though my introduction in this round (and copied and pasted 3rd point) show how actually Pro completely ignored this argument, therefore my third argument must also be extended. And finally, in response to my fourth point about how accepting a debate does no real harm, Pro merely says that one should go for a more "serious" debate to gain experience and actually challenge themselves. While I agree that accepting frivolous debates for the easy victory is not exactly something incredibly admirable (in the sense that it doesn't make the contender any more impressive), this still is not enough to explain why accepting is 'harmful' or in any way negative. In fact, this could easily be combated by noting one takes both serious debates and debates that take a little more creativity.

To prove my point - and to provide some sources - I'll link to some "frivolous debates" in which you can see that a contender has actually made some clever, intelligent, witty or some kind of decent argument against a frivolous topic. However in conclusion, please extend all of my arguments up until this point - and as always - I wish Pro the best.

Examples:

- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Qetzlcoatl 7 years ago
Qetzlcoatl
I didn't think this would kill you on the inside.
Posted by frenchmoose 7 years ago
frenchmoose
i wonder..
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
"and not concentrate on grammar or lack of information"

????? crap i have to take a humongous dump bye
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I like how pro gives a disclaimer about grammar and then immediately starts misspelling words
Posted by Qetzlcoatl 7 years ago
Qetzlcoatl
*Tear* I hate being serious.
Posted by Qetzlcoatl 7 years ago
Qetzlcoatl
I see your point. But what I did proved my own point. (Which really doesn't make sense and thus kills my own debate) I will admit this is my first time trying out debates, for practice, and thus do not know how this truly works. So in turn I read many things and decided to take up an arguement, that had some logic, but I'm sure creators of this website had already figured out a way in removing/moving satirical debates.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Haha whoops! I posted my argument in the comments section! I'll copy pasta into the debate frame now :)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.

1. If one does not accept a debate in the challenge period, then it remains in the challenge period for all debaters to see when they check what debates are available. If a debater accepts the debate right away, it minimizes the chances of a larger audience seeing the debate thus limiting the attention that the instigator so desperately seeks. This makes their nonsense FAIL.

2. Recently I took a dumb debate and pledged to forfeit 1 round - reason being that debates that have 1 or more forfeited rounds do not appear on the front page for voters to see. This also ensures that less people will see the dumb debate, hence limiting the amount of attention the instigator receives and therefore the instigator fails.

3. Sometimes it is amusing/challenging to come up with a legitimate argument against a joke topics. Usually this evokes some sort of creativity, typically in the form of semantics arguments. For example, one of my favorite debates I've done had the resolution "It is immoral to molest handicapped orphans" or something. I wound up winning the debate based on my creative argument, giving both myself, my opponent and the audience some entertainment.

4. Accepting a silly debate does no real harm. At best, it gives the more serious debater an easy win. At worst, well... nothing. It doesn't have any real negative effect aside from making the instigator look bad.

In conclusion, I'll leave my arguments at that for now though of course reserve the right to introduce new arguments in R2. Remember that the burden is on Pro to prove that frivolous debates ought not be accepted. I must prove that it is not any better to leave frivolous debates in the challenge period then it is to accept and debate them. Good luck, Pro.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
What is this particular debate even about?
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
omg a meta debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
QetzlcoatlDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments about how taking it out of the challenge period minimizes attention. Pro argued that leaving it there minimizes attention but he should really have elaborated on it further. Pro never attempts to build his point on whether forfeiting is like accepting a race you can't run. Overall, I had to say, Pro made the right arguments but they came too late in the debate, neither were they substantiated.
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
QetzlcoatlDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
QetzlcoatlDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06